I know, they're just genres and "who cares about difs", but I would like to know the difs btwn Synthpop, Electropop, and Technopop (given there'd be any, unless they are all completely synonymous with each other -- in which case, then why are there 3 dif ways/terms to refer to the same genre?)

if they're different, how (content-speaking)? i.e. -- do they all use dif or certain sounds? are lyrical themes different (when they are present in a song of each genre)?
I almost think such of electropop or technopop would be more "electronic", using more synthesized sounds, whereas synthpop would have more elements of new wave and krautrock or some other rock genre's characteristics.

just asking out of curiosity and with a will to understand some electronic genres better.

I found out of those terms through Wikipedia. I guess there's some info on Electropop on Last.FM as well.
as for Technopop, perhaps it's some synonymous term with Synthpop, but I'm not 100% positive (that's just what Wiki claims but I'm skeptical about what's illustrated on Wiki sometimes).

Also, I think some sites claim they're all the same genre, which I don't totally understand..

I'm also an electronic music fan, but coming across those genres/terms got me wondering why there's a few defs of such...

Synthpop? Find me some poppy techno that doesn't have synths in it, and I'll find you someone that's misspelled poop.

This discussion reminds me of the first time I heard a metalhead correct another metalhead by saying "no no, they're not death metal, they're blackened post-metal" and I just wanted to reach out and crush his fragile little hipster windpipe.

Never underestimate the ability of stupid people to overly complicate things.

EDIT: I'm not implying that anyone here is stupid, rather that the people that tend to populate lists on Wikipedia and other parts of the internet are. It's certainly easy to get confused by all the silly labels people want to apply to things like music.

Synthpop? Find me some poppy techno that doesn't have synths in it, and I'll find you someone that's misspelled poop.

This discussion reminds me of the first time I heard a metalhead correct another metalhead by saying "no no, they're not death metal, they're blackened post-metal" and I just wanted to reach out and crush his fragile little hipster windpipe.

Never underestimate the ability of stupid people to overly complicate things.

EDIT: I'm not implying that anyone here is stupid, rather that the people that tend to populate lists on Wikipedia and other parts of the internet are. It's certainly easy to get confused by all the silly labels people want to apply to things like music.

I know, some people like to be more specific with identifying certain genres or slight sound changes between artists or something -- I'm not totally "elitist" about music genres and styles, but to a certain extent... surely enough, sometimes I wish people wouldn't keep creating smaller and more complicated subgenres to subgenres over the littlest details...

I'll accept Synthpop as a genre, of course. just not sure about technopop + electropop (which is why I ask about them here, just for some clarifications on them).

Not to steer this thread further downhill, but Wikipedia is the worst for genre ID's in the world. Dicogs is typically in line with the general consensus, as far as I can tell

I don't disagree with you, I also find Wikipedia can be misleading with genres at times, so I do often refer to anything on Discogs. sometimes Last.fm, otherwise.
but again, I only ask about the other two genres here for clarifications of their origins/info...

I think my real problem with all these microgenres is that it feels like it becomes exclusionary. Ass Pop and Butt Pop are exactly the same, except Ass Pop is only 110bpm or less and Butt Pop is everything 110+. But people will argue about what's what and tell the other side that they're idiots and don't know what they're talking about and I'm standing here thinking "you both like the same terrible music". These silly genres at some point stop encoding information about what I'm about to hear and become a wedge to drive between people that mostly like the same things, and I think that's awful.

I mean I'm all for "this is pop-country" and "this is grindcore" because at that level it actually does give me a vague idea about what's about to hit me. Even then I could just keep on with my own personally classifications of "sucks" and "doesn't suck", which has been working for me for ages.

well, my acknowledgment of the three terms:
if they are to be considered individual genres, then there are merely very subtle differences.. but all of which have a definite influence of pop/dance music (but not as much to be interchangeable with the "Dance Pop" genre):

Synthpop=basically synthesized pop music; could be an umbrella term, or a genre describing that of a style of New Wave with a bit more of a use of synthesizers (may still use guitars, at least more so than Electropop + Technopop).

Electropop=style of Synthpop; emphasis on having more of an "electronic" aspect; uses sounds and synths that are "crisp", "clean" and "crackly", and with like a cleaner production than Synthpop music.

Technopop=style of Synthpop; emphasis on its roots/influences from Techno (perhaps the mechanical, experimental, and industrial aspects).

thoughts on these distinctions? would these descriptions make sense..?

they're my reasoning based on taking the literal/logical approach on their names (as well as how some songs that could be considered one or the others are structured/composed). I think that if they were regarded as individual genres, it would be extremely subtle (at least, synthpop from electropop -- idk much of what to say about technopop...)

These genres are like beers. Having a few is all good but too many and you don't know who or what the fuck you're doing.

Yes, I acknowledge that there are many who feel that subgenres are generally pointless (or are at least okay to recognize/accept an extent), and there are some who are picky about understanding every little detail in differentiating one style of a genre from the next (depending how closely related they are). But I just wanted to know thoughts on differentiating them, not whether or not there's any purpose in discerning them from each other.

Yes, I acknowledge that there are many who feel that subgenres are generally pointless (or are at least okay to recognize/accept an extent), and there are some who are picky about understanding every little detail in differentiating one style of a genre from the next (depending how closely related they are). But I just wanted to know thoughts on differentiating them, not whether or not there's any purpose in discerning them from each other.

yeah i know what you mean. my point was that genres are pretty much necessary when in a world where there are so many tracks being produced, you need a certain degree of labeling to find something even close to what you want. then you have sub genres that want to separate the things even more. that's okay except that most people don't know or think they know what these sub genre's are. so now you have people putting out tracks as one thing when some one else would think it's something else. like yeah detroit techno, industrial techno and minimal techno i can easily see the difference. synthpop and electropop sound too similar to me to be put into different genres. people who are into synthpop might miss out on a whole lot of "electropop" tunes they might like because of all this needless seperation. and technopop? i'd need an example to even have a clue what that is.

In as far as I can tell, the electropop side of things is on the electro (no the real one not the often crap from the 2000s ) side of things. Listen to the beat-structure of that track and compare with something like Anthony Rother (example 1, example 2) or Aux 88. Same thing, but just more pop-y. Other things I have seen people call electro-pop tend to be a bit darker or weird on the lyrical content. Example - Ladytron - Seventeen might be somewhere in the middle of electro and synth pop.

I might be a bit crazy, but I associate synth-pop a little more with things like Pop Goes the World and other playful stuff from the 80s (not to say it does not get made now). Compare pop goes the world with Eurythmics - Sweet Dreams which might more on the electro-pop side of things. Maybe this is an example of modern synth-pop?

But seems pretty synth-y and pop-y to me although it has no lyrics so maybe that makes a difference and cannot be pop? (bonus ridiculousness if you like it - Lazerhawk - King of the Streets).

And then at some point it starts to blur into Electro-clash. Something the person who is accredited (I-F) with creating hates... (see Space Invaders are Smoking Grass maybe more pop-y yet people say is electroclash but what got me into electro... fuck!)

Or Miss Kitten and the Hacker (track: 1982 or Stock-Exchange - really nice tracks! Pop-y maybe more synthy, but then seem to have a punk-rock sub-text and the internet seems to think is electroclash)

In truth I am just trying to bring some order to a legitimate question that shows how a mixture of promo people, cliques, internet hype-machines, and whatever lead to some rather incoherent and arbitrary umbrella names for music which at the end of the day is just music.

Or maybe mostly just all electro (multi-year/page thread aimed at answering the question what is electro).

I am going to use this emoji because it is the first time I have posted since it was added:

yeah i know what you mean. my point was that genres are pretty much necessary when in a world where there are so many tracks being produced, you need a certain degree of labeling to find something even close to what you want. then you have sub genres that want to separate the things even more. that's okay except that most people don't know or think they know what these sub genre's are. so now you have people putting out tracks as one thing when some one else would think it's something else. like yeah detroit techno, industrial techno and minimal techno i can easily see the difference. synthpop and electropop sound too similar to me to be put into different genres. people who are into synthpop might miss out on a whole lot of "electropop" tunes they might like because of all this needless seperation. and technopop? i'd need an example to even have a clue what that is.

Yes, sometimes there are more than enough subgenres of subgenres that people come up with... I don't intend to follow every scrutinizing detail in discerning the smallest, most unusual genre from the next, but I still enjoy just attempting to understand some.
--
Also because I created a cartoon series of musical genres as humanized (anthropomorphic) beings, I've been occasionally asking on here about telling the difs between certain similar genres.. (Most are of electronic styles, so I've made tons of various electronic subgenres into chars.)

In this case of Synthpop vs. Electropop vs. Technopop, it is because I've seen some reference to each at least once, thus piquing my curiosity about them, and wondering how they can be applied to my series. I have a solid "Synthpop" character, and just recently composed "Electropop" (as a close style of Synthpop's), but I'm considering keeping "Technopop" as just an alternate name for Synthpop than an entirely separate genre...

I subscribed to reply to this post, as I also agree that the Wiki article is misleading.

I am not here to make friends mind you, as I am interested in pop music history and for me it's very ok to define musical genres as long as they make sense.

Another user already hinted at the differences between the 3 terms synthpop, electro-pop and techno-pop. A good easy way to separated the 3 terms is to consider them as "evolutive" and each term attached to musical acts using newer technologies, but they are also aesthetic qualities attached to them.

Synthpop:
First, we could argue that Kraftwerk, but also Yellow Magic Orchestra, instigated synthpop, but I don't recall this term being popular in those times (yes, I was alive). But there was literature about synths and Kraftwerk was a huge part of the discussion, so there it would have been described as synthpop, and though electronic pop already existed in the 1960's, the concept of Kraftwerk of developing an artificial, automatic, robotic band really shaped things to come. When the pop version of the DIY mentality of punk emerged, they were using a lot of synths and it was called New Wave much more than anything else. When the people who loved Disco started to make DIY "synth-disco" (not the expensive equipment used by pioneers like Giorgio Moroder), it was juste called... Dance Music. Yet, not quite original but people were fed up by the term Disco at the turn of 1980, so terms like New Wave and Dance for the more club-oriented acts suited. Sub-genres of New Wave were used, Darkwave, etc, a lot of these bands were very synth-based. Synthpop was used sporadically too and eventually became the preferred tag to differentiate bands that were exclusively using synths from those that mixed with standard pop-rock instruments.
A perfect syntpop anthem: OMD - Enola Gay

Electro-Pop:
This term was used, absolutely. Also emerging from Kraftwerk and their concept of inorganic, robotic, computerized music. Trans-Europe Express was a huge influence on this sound. Kraftwerk used instruments that they created themselves, and as there were updating their own sound, this new "electro" aesthetic emerged, which somehow the synthesizers industry was catching up with, because other bands started to use this deeper electronic sound, especially in USA where electro-funk emerged, and both electro-pop and electro-funk would have a huge influence on Hip Hop and when you take pop and funk out of electro you have Electro, which is just a form of dance music, very funky, robotic, and futuristic (or retro-futuristic). The aesthetic was the perfect automate computer world that Kraftwerk imagined in those times, it was perceived as far ahead of the general synthpop, synth-dance, new wave, etc...
A perfect electro anthem: Herbie Hancock (with Bill Laswell) - Rockit (ok.. it's not pop, but sing over that and it will be electro-pop, or listen to Mini-Calculateur by Kraftwerk)

Techno-Pop:
To pinpoint the beginning of techno-pop is less officially understood. The term was used in those times, sporadically. First, The Buggles used it in a song called technopop, but I would attach Cabaret Voltaire as one important band from when the sound emerged. Basically, as someoned mentioned before, it was basically synthpop but with an industrial influence, and in fact Cabaret Voltaire are often considered with Throbbing Gristle as founding the "Industrial" movement in music. But despite Throbbing Gristle accidentally providing a fine proto-techno track by trying to mock Giorgio Moroder (Hot On The Heels Of Love), it was more Cabaret Voltaire that branched out into this sort of Industrial pop that would regularly be referred to as techno-pop back in the days, but really interchangeably with various other terms, like Industrial Dance, when bands like Skinny Puppy started. Depeche Mode are the perfect band that romanticized the industrial aesthetic, and by the time of their second or third album were a quintessential techno-pop band. This had a lot to do with technology used, like the Roland beatboxes and synths, the early use of sample technology, I mean by the mid-1980 the "synthpop" of the late 1970's wasn't the same sound, so new terms were often used to described "updated" sounds. Trevorn Horn, to come back to him, was also influential in his production work, and he would form Art Of Noise, which was a huge, you could describe "Moments In Love" as a techno-pop ballad. The difference with the industrial aesthetic of techno is that it was more dystopian originally than the more utopian Electro, if that makes any sense. Electro was more, "fun, let's use synthetic voice effect and sing like we're in a videogame" (Tron). Techno was more, I mean, just look at the cover art for Some Great Reward. But I disgress, there was some pretty dystopian electro and Kraftwerk was probably dystopian since the onset.
(techno-pop anthem would be - Depeche Mode - People Are People)

Notice that I used the term "Techno". Most people say Techno was invented in Detroit in the mid-1980's. But that didn't came out from nowhere. The DJs in Detroit were playing all these bands I named above, Depeche Mode, Kraftwerk (who incidentally were about to release an album named Techno Pop in those days, which was changed but changed back recently, though the music on that album remains mostly electro except maybe the Boing Boom Shack track). The way I see it, House music was the DIY version of Disco that, rather of using the equipment used by DIY Dance (synth-dance, and later subgenres like Hi-NRG), were using the same equipment as hip hop, techno-pop (Tr-909 for example), and electro (the famous 808), and that "updated" sound influenced the Techno of Detroit, except that Detroit attached the colder, mechanical, industrial aesthetic of the techno-pop bands they were playing. It is rarely acknowledged just how much Techno was mostly a minimal version of techno-pop by way of House music (itself a minimal version of Disco), and in that sense, without their own knowing, the industrial scene in UK (Cabaret Voltaire, Throbbing Gristle) had a strong influence on Detroit by way of much poppier and club-friendly music. Electro obviously also played a huge role, as anyone claiming they have invented "Techno" in Detroit know very well that they started in an Electro act. So to resume, if those guy are able to make a difference in the club music sounds they were playing, than that differentiation of sound also applies to pop music. Mostly it's about using newer instruments, switching from the old beatbox and synth and sequencer to the better(?) new ones.

On a last note, Genesis P Orridge who never claimed anything on Techno (as I said above, to my taste Hot On The Heels Of Love is proto-techno), was an instigator of the early UK rave scene, through which Techno became more widely known.

Trying to describe specifics in musical terms can sound clownish, but heck, this forum is about IDM, the most presomptuous musical term ever. ;-)

Anyways it saddens me how on Wiki people take so much care in separating categories from what happened after Techno, but none care is given about pre-Techno, and discovering the flawed Wiki entry about all-encompassing "synthpop" was annoying to say the least.

(Dude - Ok so can I mix synthpop, electropop, technopop, to the point where you can't make a difference anymore and you can shud up?
Me - You wouldn't even be doing anything new. I'm taking things to the extreme, but there always have been tunes and artists who just mixed it all up, and besides today the impact of new gear impacting on new sounds is lost, maybe we should look at the new gear of today and witness if they impact on new sounds and new scenes.)